Guest Post: On (Delayed) Tax Day

Ah, April 15th! I want you to consider that the date means absolutely nothing to 47% of US households as they will pay zero in federal income tax. Yes, state, property and sin taxes still get them, but we are seeing a disturbing trend towards a tipping point where fewer than half of us pay any sort of income tax. Five years ago it was 40% who paid no income tax. By 2012 this could be the first election in which the majority of voters will be able to vote themselves more government largess paid for by a minority of taxpayers. We may soon have to re-jigger the American Revolution’s familiar rallying cry into: “Representation Without Taxation!”

Statistics vary slightly but it can be argued that the top five percent of US households pay 60% of federal income tax. Ten percent account for over 75%. Another two-fifths make up the rest. And half are exempt. And yet…twenty percent of US households get 75% of their income from the federal government. Another one-fifth receives 40% of their financial support from Uncle Sam. Think about what this means in terms of fiscal responsibility down the road. How receptive to cutting taxes which they do not pay, or cutting government spending, from which they benefit, is a majority voting block going to be in the future? Indeed, what does this say about our prospects for economic growth or curbing the size and scope of an ever growing government colossus in the face of a crushing $20 trillion deficit looming on the horizon?

Very soon we may not be merely de-incentivizing economic activity but actively waging war on it.

Obamacare is but the most recent and fiscally insane manifestation of this myopia that now holds sway in the capitol and white house—and has for over a decade regardless of the party in power (in case one thinks this overtly partisan). I am coming to fear that this administration is not about mere “spreading the wealth” as 2008 candidate Obama let slip in a revealing off-teleprompter moment. Rather its aim is to increase dependency upon the state based upon an illogical faith in the judgment of detached federal bureaucrats over the parochial citizenry. It is also about cynically creating a permanent voting block addicted to government hand-outs which will in turn reward politicians with life-time tenure so long as they keep the gravy train of our confiscated wealth flowing. Democracy’s most insidious enemy is the gradual devolution into the tyranny of the majority where 51% of the populace can vote again and again to empty the pockets of the other 49%. Not only is this dynamic morally wrong, this is the death knell for a free and vibrant republic as wealth will inevitably flee to safer havens (or to the black market) taking future prosperity and stability with it. How many of us ever got a job from a poor man?

A lot of harm in the world has been done by intellectuals who started off with noble intentions but little understanding of how the real world operates. Consider the on-going Eurozone’s massive bail-outs of financially distressed states like Greece because, at the risk of oversimplifying, the ballooning costs of its overly-generous state entitlement apparatus eventually overwhelmed its tax base—25% of which has been driven underground. It should be a stark lesson in the mathematical limits of trying to financially engineer social justice…one Washington should watch very closely. Unless, of course, the aim is just the accumulation of raw power through expanding government and manifesting life-time tenures in Congress by robbing productive Peters to pay suckling Pauls in exchange for votes. Then the lessons screaming at us from across the pond are irrelevant.In the meantime, Happy Tax Day! I’m sure our money is being well spent.

On April 15th, there were 6 banks that failed, costing the deposit insurance fund a little shy of $600 million. I have grown tired of constantly living in a state of fear. Fukushima is a mess and might keep spewing radiation for an additional 6-9 months. Sea turtles, dolphins and whales wash up in the Gulf of Mexico as the BP oil spill has absolutely not gone away. So to my list of worries, I will now add that I am apparently the only "sucker" who still pays taxes.

We have temporary taxes in oklahoma. When they expire they spend millions advertising some stupid project to put the money towards. When it fails they spend more millions advertising another stupid project to put the money towards. This continunes ad infinitum until something is passed. It's about as temporary as a politicians delcaration to stop lying.

Good. Because income taxes on anyone, at any level, are indefensible in a free society.

An income tax is a tax on your existence. When the fruits of your labor are taken from you by force, you are a slave, by definition.

The Federal Government supported itself for almost 150 years by using excise taxes. When the american people were gradually enslaved starting in 1913, it was the end of a free society. NO MORE INCOME TAXES.

Indeed...taxation is theft and is morally wrong...(and, of course, economically stupid). Pro-income theft supporters always ignore this and say well, there is no correlation between economic growth and taxation to which I reply, if there is no correlation then why not raise the rate to 100% of income, then you can give everything you earn to the government, at this point they usually walk away....

Also, the amount of money the Federal gov takes in without personal and corporate income taxes is enormous, something like $1Trillion...if you can not run a government on $1Trillion something is very wrong.

I don't care about the truth or veracity of the information presented on that Web site... I have no interest in debating that. What I would like to point out is that you will be laughed out of the room within 5 minutes of arriving in tax or criminal court with that defense.

It's what you can prove that counts. It's case law (however, improper) that holds sway there.

You will have to export yourself or your money off shore to have any hope of avoiding it.

Income tax was instituted to insure that bankers would be paid on the national debt- a debt to be created and managed by the FED.

The author neglects to mention that this same 5% hold over 80% of the wealth. The author also neglects to notice that much of the federal largess is blood money- spent to keep the lower classes from revolting.

The wealthy have been getting richer, not poorer. Worse, taxes are not collected in sufficient amounts to pay the costs of their bloated government. Consequently, the difference will be made by cutting entitlements(for the lower classes) and maintaining the operations that earn them a subsidy- war, corporate loopholes and judicial favoritism.

This argument gets trotted out and put on display regularly. It is a whore. The best system would be minimum government with zero taxes and common law systems, but then, the rich would actually have to compete- instead of stealing their wealth through influence and state created rents.

The history of the world is one of a priviledged class served by a much larger worker class. One can make what ever assumptions they want about why. The only measure of civility has been noblesse oblige. We appear to be transiting away from this standard.

Social security and Medicare are direct transfer payments. They go from payer to recipient and as such in theory do not pay for the operation of government. Of course, during the surplus years of Social Security the excess funds were "loaned" to the government to cover day to day operations.

Everyone is taxed for these because they are in essence an insurance premium. Since everyone is a recipient then everyone has to pay. Since everyone gets a proportional benefit (roughly) you have to pay the same, i.e. rich people do not pay more for Soc. Sec. once the cap is reached because their benefit also caps out. It is similar to any other plan you buy in the private market in this regard.

So, these taxes do not change the argument. In fact, stupid politicians are about to change Soc. Sec. into welfare through means testing and uncapping the premium. It is just another rusted nail in the coffin of our collectivist society. We can congratulate all retirees on being welfare recipients. Should make us all proud.

The point is this article is valid. Democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Once about half the electorate pays no taxes whatsoever they become immune to taxing anyone else. In addition, deficits are the difference between what we want now and what we are really willing to pay. So we pass the real tax with added interest to our kids and grandkids. The national debt is the sum total of our current account greed and cowardice in balancing the books. The bill will come due in time. Don't be surprised when our following generations want to burn down the retirement homes when we voted them all the bills and ourselves all the goodies.

Once we left any Constitutional restrictions on what the Federal government can do we opened pandora's box to never ending programs and income redistribution.

The socialist-collectivist state never pays its bills or delivers on its promises of prosperity and utopia. It redistributes poverty and servitude on all. It never ever works anywhere over time.

I'm looking at my 2011 social security form. And it's a big giant piece of shit lying ass document. It's so full of shit I'd have to have a labotomy to not notice.

It's saying 4793 dollars in 1983. And that was my junior year in high school. I took 5 classes and during finals week I worked 47 hours. Because my manger was pregnant and kept sluffing responsibility off on me. I was so exhausted all the time from closing. Going to sleep at 2 am. Getting up at 6:30. Going to school. Sleeping till I went to work at 5pm that I completely burned out. I made over 7grand that year. And social security is lying out it's fucking ass. After finally blowing up at the assistant manager for cruising into work an hour late strung out crashing from a speed bender. He fired me. I couldn't work for 3 whole months because I was just too exhausted.

The IRS and united states government can't be trusted to tell one goddamn number right. They are so fucking enron it's not even funny.

I'm looking at my 2011 social security form. And it's a big giant piece of shit lying ass document. It's so full of shit I'd have to have a labotomy to not notice.

It's saying 4793 dollars in 1983. And that was my junior year in high school. I took 5 classes and during finals week I worked 47 hours. Because my manger was pregnant and kept sluffing responsibility off on me. I was so exhausted all the time from closing. Going to sleep at 2 am. Getting up at 6:30. Going to school. Sleeping till I went to work at 5pm that I completely burned out. I made over 7grand that year. And social security is lying out it's fucking ass. After finally blowing up at the assistant manager for cruising into work an hour late strung out crashing from a speed bender. He fired me. I couldn't work for 3 whole months because I was just too exhausted.

The IRS and united states government can't be trusted to tell one goddamn number right. They are so fucking enron it's not even funny.

The point is this article is valid. Democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Once about half the electorate pays no taxes whatsoever they become immune to taxing anyone else.

It is only valid the US way, that is cherrypicking to cling on a mantra.

The article jumps from a valid point, the number of people no longer paying federal income tax to voting.

Without providing a ground to show that people who are exempted from federal income tax do indeed vote.

When a representative is elected by winning 25pc of the total electorate in a bi partisan election, it implies that quite a number of people forgot to cast a vote. Of course, since in the US, a majority is only absolute when it comes to racial issues, for an election, scaling is done. If 45pc of the global electore vote, anyone collecting most than the half of that is told to rule by majority.

Dick...Yeah you. Social Security and Medicare is still counted in the budget and subject to cuts. It was only when Social Security surpluses stopped in 2009 that people got all excited. All that money goes into the general fund. There is no separate checking account for it.It accounts for almost as much receipts as the Corporate and Individual taxes do.

It's a tax by another name K? Save the bullshit for other assholes outraged they have to part with one penny they stole.

Yes, the 47 percent of Americans who, infamously, owe no federal income taxes to the federal government do still pay some payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

But there are millions of American households for which tax day literally is pay day; they receive more cash from the IRS than they contribute in federal income taxes and employment taxes.IE, they are making money off federal taxes.

“The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment,” according to an AP article last April, Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax.

In short, 50 percent of people are getting something for nothing.

According to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax: In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax…as long as there are two children younger than 17.

In the past 40 years, Washington has passed a series of laws, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child tax credit, that send money to lower- and middle-income families through the tax system.

Obama's Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.

Of course all still can vote on expensive programs to which they won't contribute, whether it's foreign wars or domestic entitlements.

(A caller on the Tom Sullivan radio call-in this week mentioned an Adoption Tax Credit totaling $12,150 per adopted child (per child not per year)—making his total pay check from the IRS this year $21,000, based on a family of four with two newly adopted children and an income of $50,000 - a commendable program but through the IRS? Even though the caller’s construction business income is down because of the recession, he remained critical of the government’s unfair taxing policies.)

I have an effective federal income tax rate of 1% this year...Getting back about all the money I withheld for federal income tax. Seems pretty strange but great for me. Noone should have a negative effective federal income tax, thats just called welfare. Speaking of which, if normal people can have negative effective federal income tax rates without even lobbying for them, no wonder with all their lobbying power that companies like GE, JPM and Exxon don't pay taxes (or even pay negative taxes), they probably don't even have to try that hard...

It's exactly the point that the government should never get into the game of legislating "social justice". All it is is an excuse for the government to control, to pick winners and losers, to try to control the society in need of "social justice."

And if the government really doesn't help 'social justice' the people on the losing side of 'social justice' will come at us hard. Go to countries with GINI coeifficents below that of the US (and where many want this to go) and you might think a bit of social justice makes a bit more sense...

The winners are being picked and it isn't you or me. It's GS, JP Morgan and friends. It certainly isn't the poor, middle class or the mildly rich.

You don't get it. GS, JP Morgan, et. al. are creatures of the state, supported by a gigantic web of legislation that started with the Federal Reserve. You want social justice? Cripple government by making it 90% smaller, restrict the creation of Corporations to specific charters with limited terms that expire, and then tax those restricted Corporations. The unrestricted corporate form of organization is evil. Sole proprietorships and partnerships are the only moral forms of business organization.

Yeh evil: good and evil. Reminds me of the last president who chainsawed Glass Steagall: evil I guess... What does the new clown in power do? Give them billions for screwing up. Talk about capture!

GS and JP Morgan are not creatures of the state. They infiltrated a weak state and took it over. A bit like drug cartels are taking over Mexico and like the mafia has control over large parts of Italy. The 0.1% use every level of power to take over our only defense against them and now they want the sheeple to ask them to destroy the only possible protector that can stop them from completly taking over. Shrinking the gov by 90% means no more courts to prosecute them. What do you want? Get ride of all the institutions that are the basis for a strong country? How about reforming or stopping the corruption?

Do you really think you will be better of with no civil institutions? Who will protect us against the 0.1%? Somalia has no evil gov but I bet a few (99.9%) there would want one to protect them from the 0.1%...

Every era had their robber barons. Pre 1913 was no different. The names change but the principle is the same. Gold standard or fiat with or without a central bank: the same rules of class warfare apply but the tools of oppression vary. The 0.01% simply use all available tools of oppression... The 99.9% could fight back but when the top 9.9% are scared of being pushed down they usually push back the bottom 90%. Works that way, with a few historic exceptions, in most developed countries. The US was one of those rare exceptions that escaped fascism under FDR. Sadly I doubt we can pull that off twice. Hope I'm wrong but investing as if we are heading towards Benitos land or worst...

Getting ride of the fedral reserve would change nothing. Getting ride of government would just get ride of the last vestige of minor protection that stands between us and the 0.01%. Getting our governments back is the only protection against serfdom.

it is very much like the drug cartels in Mexico, control of the judicial system, regulators, congress and executive branch, CNBS; instead of gunning down innocent civilians poor people worldwide starve to death by GS and JPM etc ramping up food and energy prices.

No you're missing the point here. The MOB was this shadowy thing that everybody knew about but didn't know exactly what the hell it was ALL THROUGH THE 50's. Once they were "discovered" in the 60's it turned out they were working heavily with government cia etc.

The mob is represented as some form of low conciousness that's beneath the government conciousness. But it's just a direct expression of government conciousness without the lies and deceipt mask.

All these ufo's and crap. If they were here to help us should be scooping these guys up taking them someplace far far away and dropping them off and making them walk home. If they don't know who the good guys are and the bad guys by now they never will or don't care.

Absolutely. Let the non-payers stop calling for some arbitrary “social justice” they believe they’ve been denied, and start calling for “justice” straight up without the prefixes. Taxpayers can no longer afford their prefixed justice.

People know economic injustice when they see it.

Perhaps the Congressional Budget Office already has forgotten the $1 Trillion it calculated for the Obamacare bill that must be paid over 10 years for an additional 32 million uninsured people, most arriving from Mexico, adding 16 million people to the Medicaid roll and subsidizing private coverage for low- and middle-income people?But will the taxpayer ever be allowed to forget?

Of course, “The Democrats hailed the (Obamacare) votes as historic and a long overdue step forward in social justice, comparable to the establishment of Medicare and Social Security.”

Or, as South Carolina Representative Jame E. Clyburn put it:‘This is the civil rights act of the 21st century.”

And who pays the "inflation tax"? All those with dollar-denominated assets - money they just managed to save after the government taxed the hell out of them - that's who. Fucked again, suckers! The sad lesson is that government is nothing but a vast, corrupt wealth redistribution engine, roaming the landscape looking for pools of wealth to steal and use to perpetuate and expand its own existence. Wealth can only be stolen from those that have it and are too weak to defend it, which of course today is the middle classes.

The rich are the "real" taxpayers? Bullshit. Jamie Dimon is a welfare case who gives kickbacks to Uncle Sugar. The money he "earned" is also known as the national debt, which has been piling up at the rate of more than $500 per person per month for three years now.

I didn't know ZH hired another staffer. Congrats. I'm glad they finally are hiring somebody to vet the comments to make sure we only hear what we want to hear. I mean the nerve of some people having outside thoughts. Good for you standng up to these people. The best part: you're also psychich and you knew his thouhgts before he said them. WOW!

He thought he was the King of AmericaWhere they pour Coca Cola just like vintage wineNow I try hard not to become hystericalBut I'm not sure if I am laughing or crying for you

I wish that I could push a buttonAnd talk in the past and not the present tenseAnd watch this hurtin' feeling disappearLike it was common senseIt was a fine idea at the timeNow it's a brilliant mistake

She said that she was working for the ABC NewsIt was as much of the alphabet as she knew how to useHer perfume was unspeakableIt lingered in the airLike her artificial laughterHer mementos of affairs

"Oh" I said "I see you know him""Isn't that very fortunate for you"And she showed me his calling cardHe came third or fourth and there were more than one or twoHe was a fine idea at the timeNow he's a brilliant mistake

He thought he was the King of AmericaBut it was just a boulevard of broken dreamsA trick they do with mirrors and with chemicalsThe words of love in whispersAnd the accent-worded screams

Can't you count? There are three wars not paid for, and one not voted on. Oh, that's right, never mind, the extra war not voted on is from the savior and doesn't fit the mold, so we will look the other way.

At least update the rhetoric and get with the times. Bush caused Barry to do it.

GS and JP Morgan are the ones holding a gun to your head for now. If this keeps on going downhill there will be a lot of poor people with a lot of guns sticking them in our faces regularly. I can't afford the milage on a bullet proof car.

Contrary to belief, the US has a low marginal tax rate and that partially explaines the deficit, especially when we go to war without paying for it, or let the bankers rape our wealth and move it offshore...

Move to Somalia: no taxes... But then again there are a few issues there also.

When or where has there been a truely free society as you dream of? Who paid to maintain basic infrastrucure and enforce contracts? The military 'to protect our freedoms'? Do they just steal the money from weaker states or impose militias in times of need? Getting sent to fight isn't exactly a free society thing either...

If you ever find a place where its' citizens are free and there is no taxation it will get crowded fast so move quickly. I'll give you some of my saved income tax if you get me in.

Soooo, the US was a A) a Somali-like Hell-Hole before 1913 or B) the freest, most successful and weathly counties in the world before 1913? Teddy R didn't build the Great White Fleet by filching your grandpa's pocketbook, you numbnut. You only need an income tax if you are trying to operate a useless globe-spanning empire, not protect your republic.

I found a placewhere the citizens were free and there was no taxation on your income. I found it in a history book that was all dusty and stuff. It was called the United States. Too bad that place isn't around anymore. Where's Doc Brown when you need him.

a) and b)...just depends which side of the tracks you were on at the time.

that place started to die in around 1886 as best we can tell (anyone who thinks we fought a revolution against a monarchy and not the british corporations that were directing them needs to read more).

consider for a second, that the empire and the corporation are linked entities (i tell you, these locals are getting brave in their raids on our foo foo mines, do you think the admiral could spare a few men?).

There were taxes before 1913. Not an income tax but a tax is a tax. I mean let's say they get rid of your income tax but impose a vat is that ok? Unfortanetley we need taxes. It's not 1850 anymore. How would we support the country with zero taxes. You seem to be arguing just aginast the income tax so what would be a more fair way to assess tax to raise revenue?

You are 100% right. But don't expect anyone to agree with you or understand you out there. I was giving a speech to a collection of wealthy Silicon Valley Republicans and after a very detailed and well-put (if I do say so myself) delineation of this exact point, one lady raised her hand and said, "Well what taxes do you propose?" Good God. "None!" I said. "We tax others for the privilege of selling goods in the US and shrink the Federal gov to fit the bill." They looked at me like I had sprouted a third arm...it was then I knew I was done with party politics.

You must be one of the 47% whose marginal tax rate is 0%. If you look at marginal and effective tax rates for ACTUAL TAXPAYERS - they are some of the highest in the developed world. The reason for the discrepancy between those rates and taxes as a share of GDP is 1) loopholes for the extremely rich (The rich don't pay their fair share) and 2) low consumption taxes (e.g. fuel) (the lower class doesn't pay its fair share) so the middle class (and the self employed) are screwed.

I loves my some ZH, but don't expect a lot of sympathy towards your argument from those posting here.

Greed has almost totally destroyed the social compact that humans should have with each other. They use the same tired old arguments that the aristocracy has used since the begining. If your poor, sick, uneducated etc it's of course your fault and no one should help you but yourself and if you can't, then please go away and die so that the rest of us don't have to look at or pay for you.

They make the argument that taxes "take" from them and give to the unworthy. I see it as the price to pay for a stable society. If someone loses their job, would you rather they collect some social safety net services that they have been paying for their entire working life. Or would you rather they buy a gun and come to your house and take your crap. If you can't defend it, do you really deserve it?

I personally prefer the 1st option. Wouldn't you rather be your brothers keeper and have someone be yours than having to stand in front of your shit with a gun all day?

Well, that sounds nice, but the fact is, by being for the income tax, you are squarely against a Free society. Instead it seems you want man to be a slave to his fellow man, with the government as the "well intentioned" intermediary. I use the term "well intentioned" in the most sarcastic way.

Income tax at any level is slavery, by definition. Please be intellectually honest enough to state upfront that you are against liberty, and for slavery.

Taking a low percentage of wages to support the country is slavery? Most don't pay anyway but the well off and if you are that well off and are still mad about it, wow, just wow. You better hope there is no God. Cause Lord he is going to strike you down. Were you the lawyer in Seven? I consider taxes charity. I also consider them the price paid for civility, per Chief Justice O. W. Holmes.

"Wouldn't you rather be your brothers keeper and have someone be yours..."

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of this Biblical phrase.

It originates from Cain attempting to lie to God about his murdering his own brother...hardly something that should be used to make a point about government taking from one to give to a complete stranger. The lesson is the phrase was uttered as one of deceit, not charity.

But the larger point is...no one has a right to another's earnings and I find it immoral to use the ballot box to take from another to enrich yourself through deception.

That said we, as a society, have decided we will care for the disabled through taxation...the problem of course has always been the number who claim this status among us.

I say, if you are a ward of the state you give up your ability to vote in a federal election. Once you become self sustaining again it is restored.

Everyone is free to help their "brother" in his hour of need voluntarily, there are no laws against it...but when you use government to take from your neighbor to help your brother it is another matter entirely.

"I wasn't refering to the biblical story, (bullshit)just making an analogy that we are all in this together

No...we are not all in this together. That's the problem spud.

Half pay income tax and half do not. If we are in this together what does the half that pay no income taxes bring to the table?...good looks and a sob story? Only one of those will get you very far most places.

"Your welcome for the interstate highway system that allows YOUR products to be moved cheaply and efficiently."

I don't sell products...and you must ride a fucking bicycle because you didn't notice the price of gas.

"Your welcome for the municipal water treatment and sewer plants that allows people to live so close together and for cities to exist."

I paid with my money to have my both my water wells put in. I also paid with my money to have my septic and drain field put in. I pay from time to time with my money to maintain all.

"Your welcome for municipal Gas and electric plants so that you have the energy to produce your product so that YOU can become wealthy."

Again...not everyone is hooked onto a "life support" system the way you are...no gas either...and when the power goes out...I have a generator. I have structured my life for how I wish to live...you have as well, deal with it.

"Once WE'VE all paid for the infrastructure to make your wealth possible, it's real easy to shit on US and say that YOU did it all on your own, isn't it."

Your entire post is based on assumptions...I'm not wealthy...I did pay for it all on my own...now, don't ask me to pay for or subsidize your shit and we won't have a problem.

"If you want to be self made. Go move to a mountain by yourself. Just don't use OUR roads, electricity, gas or any public utility while your there. Figure it out yourself."

I am self made (see above)...if you can't handle being self made, keep your ass in the city, breathe the fumes, fight the traffic, look over your shoulder when walking at night, barricade your doors, scream at the guy next to you at a stop light, give yourself ulcers...and pay for it all yourself...and pay for your neighbors too, he does say thank you when you do, doesn't he?

Just remember...if the SHTF...don't bring your ass out here whining & sniveling...it really is like Deliverance or sumpin out here ;-)

Why is everyone so pissed? You make your money, you pay a little bit to keep the peasants fed and housed. Seems like a good arrangment. What idiot thinks it's a good idea chop the whole tree down just because you've got dead branches?

Libertarians are only possible in a society with a strong social fabric, which means people get fed. In societies with hungry people, the Libertarians circle jerk each other in dimly lit basements. Show me a hungry, sick or homeless libertarian. LOL! Death is the ultimate form of liberty don't you think?

One poster on this thread said the top twenty percent were part of the exploitative classes.

You guys often soften your argument by saying it is really about the top 1 percent or 0.1 percent.

In practice socialists think that anyone with slightly more money than average should pay high taxes.

We always hear that the socialists only want to increase taxes on those making more than 250,000 per year, but the definition of wealthy starts creeping downward every time socialists run out of opm and need more.

About 1 percent of the posts here are liberal, maybe. Yet you say the majoirty of them are liberal tirades (paraphrased). Take off the tunnell vision glasses. It's disturbing that people can be so partisan as not even notice the obvious and focus soley on one or two posts and act like the world is against them.

The top 1% of earners in US hold 40% of wealth and make 25% of income. The top 5% more than the bottom 95%. Clearly enormous disparity exists. Use a flat tax, graduated for income, to make sure everyone participates in paying taxes, but those that benefit most from our economic system, pay most to support it.

Agree. And what's so fair about a "flat tax" anyway? Someone making 10x more than someone else should not be paying 10x more in taxes. He certainly is not receiving 10x as much government "services". They both drive the same roads. If anything, the guy with 10x greater incoming probably receives fewer govenment services: his house isn't the one being visited by the cops three times a month to sort out a domestic disturbance on the front lawn. To make it completely fair, how about a simple head tax? Let's say $2000 per year for every adult citizen, period. No exceptions, no exemptions, no subsidies. If government wants to raise the tax, they raise it for all. Let's see what rates look like when everyone pays the same thing, and you can no longer vote to raise your neighbor's taxes.

Yes. Unfortunately a flat tax on income is still an income tax. Since an income tax, by definition is slavery (as slavery is defined by the forced confiscation of the fruits of one's labor), then being in favor of the flat income tax means that you are in favor of slavery, and against a free society.

Please, it is important to be clear about this. There are many people on this thread that seem to be pro-slavery... something that was supposedly settled back in 1865 but unfortunately got overturned in 1913.

Unfortunately most people don't know the history behind the income tax or what it represents. They accept it mostly out of fear or ignorance. Think about how much smaller government would be without income tax. It would be a major ordeal to go to war and would probably only be in a matter of self defense, and we sure the hell wouldn't be bailing out any Investment banks (TBTFs were investment banks before they became holding banks so they could qualify for those handouts).

Knock knock. Who's there. a book. A book who? a book you should read called the dictionary where there are many different meaning of words that are spelled the same. Does your heart rate go up when some one says, liberal. GASP!

I'm a tyrant... Got it. Was that a well thought out thing or do you say that to all your friends? Just to those who don't agree with you 100%? And you are? Simplistic maybe? Nuance not your cup of tea? Pardon the tea pun...

Sounds vaguely familiar? The 'good or evil' thing. That was so 2002... (Good being us and evil whoever we don't agree with: just to really break this down for you...)

Also reminds me of the 'with us or against' us thing. He didn't do nuance as you surely remember him saying so proudly. That got us into a bit of a pickle somewhere East of here. And West. And South. And actually even North... When the Canadians think you are being dogmatic bullies you know you have no friends left...

You think i should work hard so your lazy ass can get more of my.money.

Sounds like tyranny to me. I think our country did.fine.before we had the income tax. I dont recall a lot of mass starvation in the 19th century requiring a massive.food.stamp program. People were required to work and didnt even imagine it would be.moral to become a burden on others.

you are correct. there were no social safety programs before the 1900s for the most part, hence why therre was massive unrest that led to them. leading cause of death in your so-called glory days: scurvyt. cause of scurvy: malnourishment.

Get rid of the income (sporting) tax and just do a VAT, with treble penalties to tax dodgers Pay 1/3 to the dirty rats that ratted them out to the government, 1/3 to the local county government and the last third to the Feds for whateverthefucktheydoanymore. Get rid of the IRS and relay upon Citizens to do their fair share and report tax cheats. The IRC only serves the tax lawyers at $600/yr and is open for loopholes for those few wealthy enough to bribe Congress. Tax consumption.

of course, that would make perfect sense.... tax consumption, so the poor will be taxed on %100 of whatever the F@#$% they make and spend in order to survive, and the top 1% will pay close to nothing as they buy their stuff in places without a consumption tax

The federal gov't supported itself just fine on excise taxes, most of which tax consumption in some way. They worked great, and are compatible with Liberty and a free society.

You seemed to have made a cartoon of consumption taxes in order to promote some sort of communistic outcome, where an "all-seeing, all-knowing, all-benevolent" elite make a social determination that some people (the takers) deserve the fruits of other people (the makers).

There are all kinds of ways to fix the tax system. Flat tax, fair tax, consumption tax, VAT tax. The problem is that the people who are doing the taxing don't want the tax system fixed. Giving away the tax loopholes and coorperate welfare are one of their big sources of power and influence and a major way to raise money for the re-election compaigns.

Aw, let's all hold hands and shed a tear for the poor elites. They are so mistreated, I mean the top 20% only owned 93% of all financial wealth in 2007 and proceeded to do their best to destroy the American economy trying to get the other 7%.

I must be real a dolt for not realizing that jobs are created by rich bastards because they feel bad for us poor guys. I guess demand for products and services doesn't have anything to do with job creation. Yep, I'm just so glad that all these rich bastards are still around, if they did leave, all that demand for products and services would just go up in smoke I guess. Bwahahah

I'm not sure if they'll ever figure it out. Life was too good when everyone thought they were in the top 10%. I was even sucked in a little. A cabin I own that I paid 125K for , was appraised at 300K at the peak of the boom. I was rich rich rich.... oh wait I never sold it and now it's worth 50K. damn

There's one rather significant stumbling block with the whole "tax the poor" idea that we hear so much from the "radical right" and the loony libertarians.

They don't have any money. That's what makes them poor.

I'm all for a decent system of taxation. I'd take virtually anything that is comprehensible and puts the preparers and shelter lawyers out of work. But that "rich folks pay all the taxes" argument that's trotted out so frequently in the US is sadly feeble. For sure if I were making a few hundred million a year, I'd be pretty happy with the current system.

Did you ever think that instead of taxing anybody (rich or poor), we could simply reduce the size of the federal gov't by, say, 95%, i.e. to something like the size it was before the crimes of 1913?

So many of the closet Communists who post here seem to forget that an income tax destroys a free society by dynamiting the fundamental principles of Liberty. This isn't class war; this isn't "rich vs. poor"; rather the question is, are you for Liberty or against it?

This country was founded on the principles of Life, Liberty, and Property. That's why the constitution forbade direct taxes like the income tax or property tax, because they destroyed those principles.

Unfortunately, today we live in a world of Communism, where Liberty is hated, and "social justice" is praised. Washington, Jefferson, et. al. would be sickened by what they see today.

But you are a communist by the logic of your argument. You guys kill me, you don't think it is ok if someone comes to your house and robs you at gun point but you think it is perfectly fine when 51% or greater people can decide if its ok to hire people to track how much everyone makes and force them to pay income taxes through intimidation and force. People like you don't like a lot of what the government does like go to war, increase the deficit, bail out banks etc... but then you turn around and basically say "well it's ok to tax 'rich' (I'll call them productive people since the truly evil rich people KNOW HOW TO AVOID TAXES) to justify raising taxes and still haven't realized they are really just fucking themselves in the end because the only people who pay taxes are LAW ABIDING citizens who either can't afford a tax haven scheme or feel it is their duty to pay taxes and assholes like you think all this is ok because "well if I am a poor fuck I'm going to make everyone else a poor fuck too!"

The crazy thing is you think no income tax means no taxes and then you accuse others of being as stupid as you were in high school. Not everyone thinks in left/right, black/white absolutes. Try wrapping your head around that.

No income taxes. Does that mean no taxes at all? Are YOU batshit crazy? Do you ever look at anything you pay? I am taxed on food, fuel, radio waves to my radio, tv waves to my tv, telephone, insurance on my car, insurance on my house, on and on and on. In fact, I am quite sure if I were to check closely, I could find that I am paying a tax on a tax at some point. It was only a year or two ago they found we were still paying a Federal tax on telephones to pay for the Spanish American War, and we had paid up already but they forgot to end the tax. Don't believe me? Look it up.

I hear the same thing from the leftists all the time. If you don't want a raise in property taxes to pay for the latest social experiment in the grade school [diversity coach for example] then you are against roads and bridges and a life saving drug for grandma, if you take social security or medicare you are a hypocrite. If you actually use the programs the socialists made you pay into all your life, then you have no right to speak out against any taxes or spending of any kind. That is what I hear all the time from people who fail to think like you on blogs and in the media. Saul would be proud of your lack of thought. Go back to high school and try to think beyond absolutes. And no, I'm not on Medicare or Social Security. If there is anything there when or if I get there, I will take as much as I can because I want something back for the years of theft.

I'm glad you know something about how the world operates, now try learning how to think logically. By the way, if you talk like a duck, and think like a duck, and vote like a duck, guess what? You might as well be called a duck, right?

Take a look at Buckaroo's posts. *He* is the guy who advocates zero taxation. I'm not making any leap--I'm reading his posts.

Meanwhile, you attribute to me some kind of plan to tax the rich, or increase government intervention in the economy, or whatever it is that's setting you off. But if actually take a look at what I've written, you *should* be able to discern that none of that is actually there. Crouching in a bunker ranting about communists went out of fashion in the 60s, guys! Are you speed-freaks or what?

I know reading comprehension is an issue around here, but y'all are supposed to be the smart guys.

The leap from "simplify a system of taxation" to "communist" is about as sensible as my saying that because you guys oppose income taxes, you're terrorists. Get a grip.

You've been a member for all of 13 weeks and you are coming here and filing the board with bile and hatred. Why? You don't have the right to tell people to leave as you do to everyone you disagree with. I'm starting to think you're a troll sent here to pollute the board withhatred so people leave thereby killing ZH. I will no longer be repsongding to anything from you. I hope people realiz yoe are a troll. I don';t from where, but you are. I feel there are a lot of you recently since the new year. kill ZH patrons off one by one by disgusting them so the whole site falls apart.

I don't care HOW you PRICE it, people in a reasonably CIVILIZED society have a right to ACESS to FOOD, SHELTER, and minimum standards of health care. If TPTB want to PRICE the above as some HUGE portion of the federal (govt) budget - so be it. But the New Deal era - UNION SCALE WAGES and STRICT FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT - worked to power what historians (not little ol' me) have called "The AMERICAN CENTURY."

The interstate highway system, the Cold War conventional military, the Cold War __vast nuclear arsenal__ including jets, missiles, aircraft carriers - Americans paid for ALL the above, but now, in the GWOT era, we can't afford ANYTHING? Look, I don't care how you slice-and-dice it, the wealthy are trying to LOOT Social Security... AS the Big Boys have waged a PUMP & DUMP JIHAD, PLUS a "FREE greenspan/bernanke TAKEOVER MONEY" LBO buyout greed-fest at expense of PENSION FUNDS for past 3 decades.

- Oh - and the nuclear industry, the Big Finance industry (and real estate), AND the health care industry, AND the auto industry (GM & Chrysler) - are ALL WARDS OF THE STATE NOW - the wealthy investors, NOT the rank & file, got BAILED OUT.

I could go on and on, but DON'T CONFLATE BAILOUTS for the wealthy, with "free markets" or with them paying taxes - WWII era, I believe the upper income bracket was 80%+, and I believe Americans in that tax bracket did JUST FINE for the 4 post-war decades before the Big Biz REACTIONARIES completed their hostile LBO buyout of the late "Democratic" Party....

"Rights" are bestowed upon us by our Creator. A "right" by definition does not infringe on another "right".

You seem to think that people have a "right" to food, shelter, and health care. Unfortunately, that "right" will necessarily infringe on someone else's right to liberty, as things like healthcare and shelter are provided for through the hard work of others.

You seem to be awfully confused. Here's a nifty little video to help you sort things out:

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Noone has the right to basic necessities, as you say, only the right to live in a society where those basic necessites can be purchased through hard work. One is simply guaranteed the right to pursue their happiness through the ability to gain employment and earn a paycheck. In many countries this is not the case. We are entitled to nothing except for the ability to pursue, without threat to one's life and liberty, whatever it is that will make you happy.

Does a homeless man have the right to live in a house? Of course not, and neither do I, but I have the right to help the homeless man if I choose, the government does not have the right to give my money to then homeless man (or poor man in the tax example). If people were not taxed so much then the natural free system of charity and goodwill would have an massively larger base of money from which to solicit donations, but our government gets in the way and messes up the process with much beaurocratic cost to boot. One of many examples of how the free market would do a better job than the government does with our tax money.